Calming down the ultra-progressives' fears.

"In Bordeaux, Cardinal Ricard said, the Good Shepherd institute could only begin pastoral activites after signing an agreement with the archdiocese." (CWN)

Well, well, this is what happens when original texts are misunderstood... The priests who are current members of the Institute of the Good Shepherd "began" their "pastoral activities" many years ago; and, as members of the Institute, from the day of its erection. So this new text by Cardinal Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux, which Catholic World News published in part, adds nothing to what he had actually said at the time of the new Institute's foundation (for his communiqué, read here): the Traditional Roman Rite is "proper" to the new Society; none of its priests may ever be constrained to concelebrate the new Mass, not even with the Cardinal-Archbishop himself...

That which demands an agreement between the Archdiocese and the Institute is the establishment of the Church of Saint-Éloi as a Personal Parish -- but its regular pastoral activities need not this canonical step to "begin"... The Holy See itself established Saint-Éloi as the seat of the Society, so there is not much Cardinal Ricard can do besides recognizing this exceptional place, safeguarded by the Vatican -- what he can do is to pretend that he wishes to "talk tough" to the "Integrists" so that his own diocesan presbyterate calm down, while at the same time he establishes a personal parish.

He desires to inform his priests (and other upset faithful) that he still is in charge, even though it is clear the circumstances were forced upon him: the Cardinal has got to do what he has got to do to calm down his priests and the other members of the Episcopal Conference he presides...____

P.S. As noticed by a few others, there is an innovation in Cardinal Ricard's latest article: calling the Traditional Roman Rite "what the Pope calls [it]": "an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite".

10 comments:

Hate of Traditionalists and tradition is an integral element of French episcopal pathology in the postmodernist era. They are so busy wrecking the modern end of the NO church in France and paving a golden pathway for islam to assume, that they no longer have any Catholic rationale left to reason with. When you have bishops in your country who no longer believe in the divinity of The Christ and in the uniqueness of His plan of salvation then empty & closing churches, desolate seminaries, afflicted religious communities and many an unkempt churchyard will be the consequence. They have buckled under the masonic philosophy of liberty, equality and fraternity so far that they are blinded to the truth. They no longer have the eyes to see nor the ears to hear.

Even Pope Paul VI stated VC II was a pastoral council and not infallible. So, postconciliarite modernist Bishop Ricard overrules conciliarist notions of "religious liberty" to hinder traditionalists practicing their faith, in order to put the ecclesiastical chaos and confusion propagated by him and his colleagues since the 1960s beyond question. Methinks the violence of which he accuses SSPX actually emanates from him.

Perhaps, the Bishop ought to listen to the words of warning from one elderly French priest Pr Cambon, 'My fear is that the Roman Catholic Church will disappear altogether in France. That's the path we're on." (interview with BBC Jan 2005).

In a country where over half the priests are on the verge of death or retirement, and where vocations are reduced to a mere trickle Ricard must be feeling threatened.

here'sa quote from a Muslim scholar's reply to bendict XVI's address to Regensburg University:The image of an opportunist Prophet, which Benedict XVI invokes in passing, is deeply painful and offensive to Muslims. How would Benedict XVI feel if Muslims pointed out that the Catholic Church only became tolerant of Muslims and Jews after it lost its power in Europe, and that this tolerance was really granted by secular states and not by the Church, but opportunistically claimed by it. Such a point is likely to give pain and offence. Imagine, then, the pain and offense we Muslims feel as Benedict XVI claims that our beloved Prophet is an opportunist who teaches one thing when he is weak, only to reverse it when he gets stronger. I think you can see how the "pastoral council" has done its damage.

As point-of-fact, Paul VI said: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents" (Gen. Aud. 1/12/66).

In this same audience, he also says, "the Council confirms, illustrates, defends, and develops [Catholic doctrine] with a most authoritative apologia full of wisdom, vigor and confidence. And it is the Council's doctrinal aspect that we must consider first."

This means that the "pastoral" nature of the Council CANNOT be pit against its doctrinal nature.

Benedict XVI's address during ecumenical Vespers service at Regensburg Cathedral in Germany, Sept. 12, 2006: “Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ! We are gathered, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants – and together with us there are also some Jewish friends – to sing together the evening praise of God... This is an hour of gratitude for the fact that we can pray together in this way and, by turning to the Lord, at the same time grow in unity among ourselves… Among those gathered for this evening’s Vespers, I would like first to greet warmly the representatives of the Orthodox Church. I have always considered it a special gift of God’s Providence that, as a professor at Bonn, I was able to come to know and to love the Orthodox Church, personally as it were, through two young Archimandrites, Stylianos Harkianakis and Damaskinos Papandreou, both of whom later became Metropolitans… Our koinonia [communion] is above all communion with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit; it is communion with the triune God, made possible by the Lord through his incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit. This communion with God creates in turn koinonia among people, as a participation in the faith of the Apostles…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10.)

Little wonder that there is so much religious indifference among Catholics these days. The objective evidence is there for all to see, in the public domain. Only phenomenology can explain it away.

Ricard and his friends can have all the "forts emotions" they like concerning the installation of the said institute but considering the absolutely catastrophic state of the NO church in France (as elsewhere) it is time for some positive rational action.

Is this not characteristic of the modern church - too many emotions and feelings and not enough rational belief and objective religion? When faith is built on the sands of emotion & feelings (and spurious rights of man) then where is the place for the real Almighty God? Does He not also demand obedience to His Will? We have received so much propaganda on the rights and dignity of the human person Our Blessed Lord has been demoted to a coequal with the buddha, mohammad and mother-earth.

Mack, I do not call you a hypocrite or heretic, but I ask you to apply your very good questions to yourself, and in particular, your comments following the pope's comments at the Regensburg Cathedral.

Did the pope deny the various differences between the Catholic Church and these religious organizations? Did the pope call for the abandoning or diminishing of any article of faith that is rejected by one of these groups? Or did the pope simply thank them for coming and thank God for the growing bonds of affection which may one day bear fruit in bonds of doctrine?

Mack, do you believe your criticism of "the Church in our day" is often very emotional, far exceeding the limits of "rational belief and objective religion"?

This very important question is submitted for you to consider for yourself in your own conscience. If you want to reply to me or rebuke me, that's fine. I'd be happy to read, consider and reply to whatever you write, but my purpose is not adversarial, but really quite fraternal.

The comments are based on the objective evidence from the statistics gathered, the interviews conducted and the overt & covert observations made by commentators, researchers and others concerned since the post-conciliar era began. The record of the post-conciliar papacies and their brother hierarchs is hardly one to be proud of. On the contrary, these have gone down a road never before permitted by the pre-conciliar church. These routes were not sanctioned by our forefathers for very pertinent reasons.

Modern obesession with ecumenism and interfaith matters is a waste of time and has served mostly to provoke indifferent attitudes by Catholics towards their faith or to scandalise others with the evident un-Catholic misbehaviour which can result. Coupled with all the other un-Catholic nonsense we have had to imbibe in recent years, the resultant data, from outlined sources above, demonstrates where the causes and correlations for indifferentism lie.

When significant persons act in public in whatever capacity they also take implications and inferences with them. The implications of such events are not lost on most observers nor on the participants for that matter.

Even Pope Paul (RIP) VI who facilitated much of the consequent post-conciliar outcome remarked on several occasions how the tail of The Devil, the smoke of Satan, the gathering storm clouds and apostasy at the top had beset the church since the councils.

When these issues become ensnared in the doctrinal trap of "obedience", then it is time to plead with The Holy Ghost for spiritual discernment in order to obey that which leads to the Truth and to avoid those matters leading to endangerment of The Faith. Many of our forefathers in the Church have visited this particular place of pilgrimage before. Obedience to a pope at all costs and to every one of his utterances is not a Catholic doctrine, however we manipulate the definitions.